Andis Kaulins wrote:

>--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Paul Schlyter <pausch@s...> wrote:
>> Andis Kaulins wrote:

>>> In my opinion, these variations are caused by planetary
>>> perturbations viz. planetary positions varying between perihelion
>>> and aphelion.
>............
>>> If that were true, then primarily responsible for the ca. 190-
>>> year cycle would be Pluto
>.............
>> You assume Pluto influences Delta-T merely because of a (very)
>> approximate coincidence in the period. Now, the tidal force on
>> the Earth due to Jupiter is some 100 million times stronger than
>> the tidal force on the Earth due to Pluto.
>>
>> If Pluto noticeably influences the Earth's rotation, how come we
>> don't see a vastly stronger variation on Delta-T due to Jupiter?
>> Such an influence could be expected to have a period of some 12
>> years, right?
>>
>> The answer is that even the tidal force from Jupiter upon the Earth
>> is far too weak to have any noticeable influence on the Earth. The
>> tidal force from the Moon (which is quite noticeable) is some 300.000
>> times stronger than the tidal force from Jupiter --- and some 30
>> trillion times stronger than the tidal force from Pluto.

> Hi Paul,
>
> I hope you realize that all that I write on this topic is highly
> speculative from my point of view, but we may be touching here upon
> important matters through that speculation.

...or we may not. That's the nature of speculation: we fumble in the
dark and don't really know what we're talking about. Occasionally
speculation can provide inspiration which later reveals important
discoveries. But most speculation are little but entertainment for
those who speculate.

> I have found an article at
> http://www.omirp.it/www/Gravitational_Waves/GW+Matter/GW_and_Matter.pd
> f (URL may not fully wrap)
> which perhaps sheds interesting light on the as yet theoretical
> gravitational waves and the rate of spin of the Earth.
>
> That is the 20 January 2003 article
> "Interaction of Gravitational Waves with Matter"
> by Primo Galletti and Aldo Aluigi
> where they write about "two Gravitational Waves of high intensity
> recorded from 16th to 23rd August 1999 and from 25th to 30th August
> 1999" which they claim might have had an effect on the rate of spin
> of the Earth. They write:

They say they RECORDED gravitational waves? That contradicts the
statement on the home page of that site http://www.omirp.it
where one can read: "Until today any attempt to detect Gravitational
Waves has not been successful."

If these people actually succeeded in recording "high intensity"
gravitational waves already six years ago, they shouldn't just post
it on Usenet but submit a report to a major scientific journal, e.g.
Nature, because that would be Big News! Of course they'd have to
submit details about how they recorded these gravitational waves
to enable others to repeat their experiment.... :-) But if they
really succeeded in detcting gravitational waves, that would be
a major breakthrough and they'd make it into science history.

> "Due to the impact with the gravitational wave, another two relevant
> phenomena are likely to be produced on the Earth:
> 1. a slowing down of the Earth rotation around its axis...."
>
> and further
>
> "The slowing down of the Earth is very likely only temporary. Later
> on and in a longer time, the Earth's rotation speed will increase
> again (due to the "cyclonic" effect) restoring the initial value, as
> cyclones and anti-cyclones continuously forming accelerate/decelerate
> the Earth rotation depending on the heat they receive from the Sun
> (it has to be kept in mind that the cyclone momentum is (always)
> higher than that of the anti-cyclone)."
>
> Galletti and Aluigi think the gravitational wave came from far outer
> space but we think it might be the planets.
>
> The most recent perihelion of Pluto occurred on Sept. 5, 1989 when it
> was inside the orbit of Neptune. Pluto crossed Neptune's orbit in
> February of 1999. It was in 1999 when we got the alleged
> gravitational waves of Galletti and Aluigi
> see http://www.space.com/reference/brit/pluto/overview.html
> at the same time (August 17 to 18, 1999), as a Grand Cross (90 degree
> x 90 degree x 90 degree x 90 degree) of planets
> see http://astrology.about.com/od/predictive/l/aa080299.htm for a

Here you point to a site which refers to astrology and Nostradamus.
I think I'm starting to understand which cam you are in..... :-/

> graph and also http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/prophecy/maps.htm.
>
> Could gravitational waves have anything to do with Delta-T?
>
> Gravitational waves are explained at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
> and see generally http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/
>
> Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein's theories
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/topics/
> but have never been observed, according to the New Scientist
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7139
> so we must of course then ask what Galletti and Aluigi were measuring.
>
> We think that the changes in the rate of spin of the Earth, i.e.
> Delta-T may prove to be instrumental in proving Einstein's theory.
> What else, other than gravitational waves, could affect this rate of
> spin of the Earth, so that such gravitational waves must be coming
> from somewhere. We just now have to isolate where. I still think the
> planets of our solar system in motion are our best bet.
>
> I understand your arguments about mass, but perhaps there are things
> that we don't know yet.

There are definitely an enormous number of things we don't know yet!

It's very easy to speculate. However, our speculations say much more
about ourselves than about the object of our speculations. It is much
harder to determine what we actually know and what we don't know, and
to differentiate the two the best we can do, given our current knowledge.
Some of the conclusions we draw today will in the future turn out to
be wrong. That's the nature of science.

Most of our speculations will turn out to be wrong too. And those few
speculations which are right will be right only by chance.

You play two games here:

1. The "prove mw wrong" game. Many speculations cannot be proved
wrong because we know far too little about the object of speculation.
Some people then follow the logic "Since they cannot prove me wrong,
I must be right", which is a flawed logic. But if you're caught up
in wishful thinking, you might fall into that trap.

2. The "conicidence" game - "Event A happened at or near the same
time as event B, therefore there must be a causal relation between
the two". Astrologers play that game all the time to find celestial
"causes" of events in their everyday lives, and since there are
always things happening up in the sky, they'll usually be able to
find some celestial event which "explains" something in their lives.


So I'll provide you with another speculation which in my ears seems
much more reasonable than your assumption that tiny and distant Pluto
should measureably affect the Earth's rotation or even cause earthquakes!

We know very little about the interior of the Earth. We do know some
things though, for instance that the solid crust of the Earth is very
thin compared to the Earth itself: its thickness is only about one
percent of the radios of the Earth. Below that we have the interior
of the Earth which is hot and liquid or at least semi-liquid. We also
know that the interior of the Earth moves - the Earth's magnetic field
and the motion of the Earth's magnetic poles is clear evidence of that.
The (much smaller) movement of the Earth's geographical poles is another
proof.

From mechanics we know that the angular momentum of a body remains
constant unless it is subjected to external forces modifying its
angular momentum. In the case of the Earth the only known significant
force of that kind is the slow slowdown of the Earth's rotation due
to the tides by mostly the Moon but also the Sun. And in principle
all the other planets as well (including tiny Pluto), although their
influences are microscopic compared to the influences from the Sun
and the Moon.

So except the slow and smooth slowdown of the Earth's rotation the
angular momentum of the Earth remains constant. Yet we observe
small and irregular changes in the Earth's rotation - how come?

To clarify this, we must be more precise with what we mean with
"the Earth's rotation". What slows down smoothly and regularly
is the angular momentum of the entire Earth, including the Earth's
interior. But when we measure the Earth's rotation, we only
measure the rotational speed of the thin crust of the Earth,
which contains a small fraction of the entire mass of the Earth.

It is quite possible, and even probable, that the interior of the
Earth has a rotational period which is different from the surface of
the Earth - remember that the interior of the Earth is not solid!
How different they are we don't know, and we don't even know if
the interior rotates faster or slower than the crust. But it
appears unlikely that the two of them should have exactly the
same speed of rotation.

And this directly gives us a possible mechanism for small irregular
changes in the rotational speed of the surface of the Earth: mass
flow inside the Earth could easily alter the rotational speed of the
Earth: if heavier mass would sink nearer the center of the Earth,
while lighter matter would move closer to the Earth's surface, the
Earth's rotation will immediately speed up, while the angular
momentum of the Earth remains unchanged. And if the opposite would
happen - heavier matter would move upwards and lighter downwards, the
Earth will slow down a little.

We do know that matter is redistributed in the Earth's interior.
Over the short term earthquakes is clear evidence of that, and over
the long term we have the continental drift.

But we know almost nothing about how the matter is redistributed in
the Earth's interior. Therefore we cannot predict either earthquakes
or irregular small changes in the rotational period of the Earth.


This is the end of this speculation. It the clear advantage that no
"new physics" is required -- the good ol' Newtonian physics, which
works fine for macroscopic bodies moving mush slower than light, is
enough.

And you cannot disprove my speculation, just as little as I can
disprove yours.

So which of these two speculations should we choose? There's
an old rule-of-thumb here which is called "Occam's Razor", which
basically states that you should choose the simplest model which
explains the observed phenomena.

We have my speculation about a mostly-unknown interior of the Earth
where good ol' Newtonian physics is enough to explain small irregular
variations in the Earth's rotation.

And we have your speculation that the planet Pluto causes these small
variations in the Earth's rotation. Since Pluto is far too small and
distant to be able to do this through Newtonian physics (or general
relativity or quantum mechanics), you simply say "perhaps there are
things that we don't know yet". This is of course true, but it also
means that your speculation requires some kind of "new physics" of
which you cannot say anything yet. That is a clear complication.

Therefore, Occams razor clearly favor my speculation over yours,
just because my speculation does not require any "new physics".


Future advancements in science can of course prove me wrong - it
can prove any current theory wrong. But we're not there yet....